Hi everyone
I have a first question to the forum. This Is just another question about waving flags... But this one I found quite interesting. In the video “Apollo 15 waving flag” located in the youtube. At 2:37, the flags was still for a long time and suddenly moves when the astronauts walks near it, but he clearly didn’t touch it. What do you think is the explanation here? Electrostatic?

I'd say so. The length of times that flag is static for prior to the astronaut passing, and the length of time it continues to oscillate after he passes, do not at all agree with any kind of atmosphere being present. It's hard to tell but he may even have made slight contact with the corner as he passed, which would also cause movement consistent with that seen (the 'away' motion at first being hidden by the astronaut so the first we see is a motion towards where he was).

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

It would appear so, yes. notice it moves away from the astronaut sligthly BEFORE he passes it. This indicates static build up. If it was air movement it would move just AFTER he passed by, and it would flutter slightly. All it does is just gently "pedulum" gradually to rest, with no sign of damping due to hanging in an atmosphere. Remember, this material is very light weight nylon (I think?!) as every ounce of weight taken was very expensive!

Does that answer the question?

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Welcome.

It's nice to provide links.

YouTube: Apollo 15 waving flag, about 3 minutes of NASA footage.

My first guess is that the astronaut who passes between camera and flag, simply brushed against the flag. The distance may not seem right, but the lens, or zoom setting, could provide false clues about actual distances.

"Clearly didn't touch it" is your conclusion, apparently unbased on actual measurements. That is certainly not clear to me.

NASA: Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal: EVA-2 Closeout

Enough?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I agree with skyfire. Actually, I posted a very similar comment on that video few days ago (as mdlima):
I think that the explanation for the Flag movement at 2:39 is just static electricity. At 2:37, just before the astronaut passes between the flag and the camera, the flag starts to move away from him. If the flag movement was caused by air dislocation, the flag would move after the astronaut passes. In vacuum, the accumulation of static electricity is much more intense than in the earth atmosphere. The UV radiation also contributes, especially in an isolating material like the Flag's fabric.

This is only the third you tube video I have watched.
However watching it I came to the conclusion that if you watch all of it, most of the time the flag does not move! And when it does move there is, clearly, influence from an astronaut. Moving the flag or passing close by.
However there are long periods when the flag is filmed yet does not move. Also, during the periods when it does move, the flag, clearly, does not behave in a manner consistent with it being in an atmosphere. i.e. The motion of the flag is damped and it stops moving long before what would be consistent with motion in an atmosphere.



Johnb

__________________
Pull ye other one, it doth have bell`s on!

I initially considered that too, but notice that the flag *does* start to move before the astronaut crosses in front of it. There's some force at work other than direct contact (and of course air flow). I tend to favor the electrostatic charge theory, but another interesting one is the sudden release of built up, torsional energy resulting from the screwing motion used to plant the flagpoles in the ground.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

greenmagoos had a field day with this

What do you guys think of his demo between the 4:30 and 7 minute marks of the video. Is it just more of the deception seen throughout his vids? I think it's cowardly that he's not allowing Apollo defenders to post rebuttals.

We discussed the moving flag footage a number of years ago, but I think it went away with one of the demises of Apollohoax. We drew the conclusion there that it was most likely electrostatic attraction for the same reasons as Svector has outlined.

ALSJ tests the hypothesis of direct contact and is unable to falsify it photogrammetrically.

Some conspiracists offer the fluid wake hypothesis, but give no evidence other than coincident observation. However, I agree that the effect does precede the cause, and that the flag is drawn toward the astronaut before he passes it. Both the direction and timing of the alleged reaction are inconsistent with a fluid wake. I was unable to duplicate any such fluid wake effect with my own flag mockup.

I tend to believe the timing and direction also falsifies the direct contact hypothesis.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I think it's a rubbish demo. First, he takes a flag made of paper, not a real flag, so it won't show the flapping of a real, full-size nylon flag in the air that would otherwise have plagued his demonsration and which is clearly NOT observed in the Apollo footage. However, watch the flag carefully as he 'walks' the picture of Shepard towards it, and you'll see it move ever so slightly. Air, perhaps?

He also whips the picture past the flag far too fast, and of course a picture mounted on flat card bears no resemblance to a person in terms of how it displaces the air.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Yes, and his intentional distortion of audio from my production in the opening sequence threw me off a little bit too, the first time I heard it. I remember thinking, "where have I heard this before?" LOL

You mean aside from the fact that the demo is completely void of any meaningful comparative study? It's very entertaining, and in no way repetitive.

HBs tend to have averse reactions to things like valid counterpoints. Best to simply not allow them to be made at all.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

A true experiment tests the circumstances to see if the contemplated cause-and-effect emerges. A conspiracy theory adjusts the circumstances until the desired cause-and-effect emerges, regardless of whether those circumstances bear any resemblance to real life or what happened in some particular case.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Funnily enough, the flags used on the moon were nothing special, one of the engineers was tasked to find a way to make the flag appear raised as there was no wind to make it flutter. He basically went to K Mart (or Wall Mart) bought ten flags, got his missus to re sew the edges so he could slide an aluminium pole along it to keep the flag up and his design was so good and cheap that they just took the flag, modified, but as is from K Mart.

Actually Montgomery Ward is the best anecdotal recollection for the exact store; no detailed record was kept. However you are absolutely correct that the flag is a COTS 3-by-5 foot American flag purchased through a retail outlet and modified across the top by the addition of a hem.

The design of the flagpole was a set of sketches, but it did undergo two revisions. The first separated the staff into two pieces with a threaded joint so that the lower penetrator could be hammered into the ground separately with a standard geology hammer. The second modification corrected a defect in the cantilever lock mechanism.

It is relatively easy for any handy person to make a physically faithful facsimile of the Apollo flags.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Jay,

Would you consider explaining this particular event in your "fluttering flags" Clavius page? Perhaps it would be a good addition to the site.

Thankyou for your objective replies to my posts, I was writing off the cuff regarding the flag as I could remember reading about it but could not attribute the source. I do know that I once watched a programme with an interview given to some 'photo expert' who claimed the landings were a hoax and the crew of Apollo 1 were murdered to keep the hoax secret from being leaked, I remember thinking 'what a nutter'.

Yes, I'll mention the fluttering flag.

The "nutter" in question was Bill Kaysing, the first author to write formally about the moon hoax. He was in no way a photo expert, although he was able to convince a number of people that he was.

The hammering option for the flagpole came about after Apollo 11 discovered that it was harder than anticipated to drive a stake into the lunar surface. The top of the pole was too high for the astronauts to reach and hammer upon with their limited range of motion, so the engineers though to to separate the staff into two pieces. The top of the lower piece was at the optimum height to hammer. Then after using the hammer to drive it in, the crew could screw the top half into it. Some tent poles still work according to this principle.

The top beam folded down along the staff for carrying. To deploy the flag, the crew would rotate the beam upward on its hinge. When it was perpendicular to the staff, a spring-loaded latch would pop out and hold the beam upright. The beam also telescoped. On Apollo 11 the telescoping didn't work because the beam had been inappropriately anodized. That caused the inner and outer tubes to cold-weld and stick in a partially-extended position.

On Apollo 12 the latch mechanism failed to hold the beam horizontal, so it was redesigned with tighter tolerances and a broader latch area. From Apollo 14 onward there were no engineering changes to the flagpole.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dare I ask if it was from Apollo 13 on?

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Well, after Apollo 13 they had to make some engineering changes to some of the machinery attached to the flagpole during the cruise phase.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base